boincadm/DA has done a couple of changesets: [trac]#24069[/trac], [trac]#24071[/trac] and [trac]#24072[/trac] that shows the Top GPU models here at Seti, (the link is beneath Statistics on the front page),

I assume this is with the Stock GPU apps, as Linux, Mac and ATI/AMD are unfilled.

We also need to work with David to help him refine the list into something more useful.

The stated thinking behind the list is:

I added a page that shows the most productive GPU types,
total and by platform:

This will at least provide suggestions for which type
of GPU board to buy.

-- David

It looks as if the data is being pulled from recently returned results, so it should be up-to-date. But so far (and it's very early days yet) the list would be positively misleading as a buyer's guide: for a single card, no way can 9600GT>9800GT>9800GTX+ be right.

I presume the scores must be strongly influenced by the number of each type of card in use here: the 9800GT was pretty much 'most bang for the buck' three years ago, and there'll be lots of them around, but that doesn't make it a 'best buy' in 2011.

Do we have anyone reading the board today who could analyse gpu_list.php, and work out exactly what's being shown in the lists? My guess is that it's the raw total credits for results in the database for each card type - and I'm wondering if it might be for people running stock apps only.

My first suggestion, given space constraints, would be to add the count of cards in brackets after the model name, and to sort the list by average (total/count). But I'm sure between us we can help make it even better than that. Any ideas?

...Do we have anyone reading the board today who could analyse gpu_list.php, and work out exactly what's being shown in the lists? My guess is that it's the raw total credits for results in the database for each card type - and I'm wondering if it might be for people running stock apps only...

A quick look suggest it's counting number of results in the last day for each model. I'll look again to check when my eyes decide to cooperate better with the PhP code.

[Edit:] I would suggest, if that's so, that it reflects a compound value of raw performance x number in circulation of each model, rather than performance alone. They would need to divide the figures by some complicated figure based on active hosts with the given model. Unfortunately Boinc doesn't identify mixed card setups properly, but if a count of the cards per machine is available it might provide something 'near enough'

Jason"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

A quick look suggest it's counting number of results in the last day for each model. I'll look again to check when my eyes decide to cooperate better with the PhP code.

[Edit:] I would suggest, if that's so, that it reflects a compound value of raw performance x number in circulation of each model, rather than performance alone. They would need to divide the figures by some complicated figure based on active hosts with the given model. Unfortunately Boinc doesn't identify mixed card setups properly, but if a count of the cards per machine is available it might provide something 'near enough'
Jason

and i vote for an overview of incoming results of the last 30 days, but like jason said, thats near enough

- Performance is not a simple linear function of the number of CPUs you throw at the problem. -

Yep, that looks a bit more reasonable, some figures would be nice, and what happened to the 8400 GS? has it dropped off the bottom?

Claggy

The code in [trac]changeset:24085[/trac] seems to consider the first 5,000 results it encounters in a list of tasks created in the last 30 days. With SETI turning over 50,000 tasks an hour, that's a pretty sparse sample - my guess is that the 8400 GS just hasn't reported in the last 5,000.

It's still not right - although David (brownie point for this one) has skipped tasks running for less than 100 seconds, basically the -9s - he's done nothing to account for shorty storms. I'd prefer to see a page like list of recently connected client types, with some explanations and cautions. And like that list, I'd like to see the query run periodically, and the results cached - the time it takes to refresh the 'Top GPU models' page suggests the code hits the servers pretty hard. Caching the page would help, though hopefully with a refresh interval of less than 10 months. Remind me to try and find a way of celebrating the anniversary of the current list ;-)

With so few tasks sampled and so many gpu's, and with the processing of mid range AR's and VHAR's havin at least a 30% variation. This exersize seems pointless and misleading, especially if it takes up a lot of server power.

It is nice to see that -9's etc can be disregarded, now maybe Dr A. can apply it where it is most needed, calculating APR.

The performance figures shown on this page are not
the manufacturer's peak-FLOPS claims;
they are the actual performance for your projects' applications,
based on job runtime info from your database.

Projects with GPU apps should consider adding this to your site
(to do so, just upgrade to the latest web code).
Your users will be interested,
and it may influence their GPU-buying decisions to your benefit.

-- David

(from the 'BOINC Projects' mailing list, for those who don't monitor it regularly)